KHAN CHAND TILOKA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of a bunch of three writ petitions (C. W. No. 396 of 1963--Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, C. W. No. 196 of 1963--Sidhu Ram v. State of Punjab, and C. W. No. 1605 of 1963--Hari Chand v. State of Punjab), in which common questions relating to interpretation and scope of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 10 of 1953, hereinafter called the Ceiling Act, call for decision.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these cases are also somewhat similar. Main arguments have been addressed on the side of the petitioners by the learned counsel in Khan chand's case. The brief facts of that writ petition may, therefore, be first stated. The petitioner is a displaced person from West Pakistan. In lieu of agricultural land left behind by him in Pakistan the petitioner was allotted 137. 22 Standard Acres equivalent to 330. 40 ordinary acres to land in villages Kotli and Suchan, Tehsil sirsa, District Hissar. Rights of permanent ownership of the said land had been conferred on the petitioner before 1953.

(3.) IN proceedings for declaring surplus area of the petitioner under the Ceiling Act the final order left only 100 ordinary acres of land as permissible area with the petitioner. The particular 100 ordinary acres of land left with the petitioner are admittedly equivalent to only 48. 42 standard acres. The complaint of the petitioner is that by the impugned orders he has been illegally deprived of at least 1. 58 standard acres of his holding contrary to the provisions of the Ceiling Act under which he must be left with at least 50 standard acres of land which is his statutory permissible area. In March 1963 the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned orders of the Collector, Surplus Area, Sirsa and to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the extra land so as to leave him with 50 standard acres. The writ petition was admitted by the Motion Bench (Mehar Singh and Dua, JJ.) on 20-3-1963 and dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. The writ petition has been contested by the State.